[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 26, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62426-62427]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23966]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 658

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2003-16164]
RIN 2125-AE99


Commercial Vehicle Width Exclusive Devices

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rulemaking and closing of public docket.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document withdraws a proposed rulemaking to amend the 
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulations to increase by one-
inch the distance that width exclusive devices could extend beyond the 
sides of commercial motor vehicles. The intent of the one-inch increase 
was to harmonize the United States' width exclusion limits for certain 
devices with those of Canada and Mexico, as recommended in a draft 
report of the Land Transportation Standards Subcommittee, created as a 
result of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The FHWA is 
unable to determine at this time that there is a need for an increase 
in the existing width exclusion applicable to safety and energy 
conservation devices. In addition, there is no evidence that the lack 
of harmonization is adversely affecting NAFTA implementation or that 
harmonization in this area is otherwise necessary. Therefore, the FHWA 
is withdrawing the proposed rulemaking and closing the public docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Phillip Forjan, Office of Freight 
Management and Operations (202) 366-6817, or Mr. Raymond Cuprill, 
Office of the Chief Counsel (202) 366-1377, Federal Highway 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office 
hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    In October 1999, the Land Transportation Standards Subcommittee 
(LTSS), created by the NAFTA Working Group 2, issued a draft discussion 
paper. The draft paper, ``Highway Safety Performance Criteria in 
Support of Vehicle Weight and Dimension Regulations'' (a copy of which 
is included in this docket), contained candidate vehicle performance 
criteria and recommended threshold values. The primary objective of 
Working Group 2 was to seek areas within the broad range of vehicle 
weights and dimensions that could be harmonized among the participating 
countries (Mexico, Canada, and the United States).
    The working group's draft discussion paper included the definition 
of ``overall width'' and proposed a standard for use by the three 
countries. This definition described width exclusive devices or 
appurtenances at the sides of a truck, tractor, semitrailer, or trailer 
whose function is related to the safe operation of the vehicle. Such 
devices may extend no more than 10 centimeters beyond the side of the 
vehicle. (Using accepted conversion factors, 10 centimeters equates to 
3.937 inches.)

[[Page 62427]]

    In a final rule published March 29, 2002 (67 FR 15102), the FHWA 
said it was preparing to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 
to consider an extension from three inches (the current U.S. exclusion 
standard) to four inches in the distance that non-property carrying 
devices could protrude from the sides of commercial motor vehicles. The 
NPRM was eventually published under FHWA Docket No. 2001-10370 on July 
29, 2002 (67 FR 48994).
    Because of concerns raised by several respondents to this NPRM, in 
particular the absence of research on the effects of such an increase, 
the FHWA determined it appropriate to issue a supplemental notice of 
proposed rulemaking (SNPRM). On March 12, 2004, the FHWA published an 
SNPRM requesting further public comment on the proposal under Docket 
No. FHWA-2003-16164 (65 FR 11997). By issuing the SNPRM, the FHWA 
sought to obtain information that would document the experience of 
others in undertaking similar changes to vehicle width exclusion 
standards or monitoring and evaluating vehicle crashes caused by 
contact with width exclusive devices. Our goal was to ascertain whether 
there might be any known operating or safety repercussions that could 
result from the one-inch increase.
    The FHWA received 3 comments in response to the SNPRM. None of 
these provided any more definitive information to make the required 
determination that the proposed expansion of the width exclusion is 
needed to promote commercial motor vehicle safety and efficiency. We 
received comments from an individual, the Truck Manufacturers 
Association (TMA), and the Advocates for Highway and Automobile Safety 
(AHAS).

Discussion of Comments

    The individual commented that a Federal rule requiring all States 
to allow an extra inch on each side of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) 
for non-cargo carrying devices on the National Network (NN) and 
reasonable access routes would be more efficient than each State 
issuing its own overwidth permits. Nevertheless, she opposed such a 
rule because issuing a special permit would be different than allowing 
a whole class of ``humongous'' vehicles. It appears that her objection 
was not so much directed at an extra inch for safety or energy 
conserving devices, but at the overall size of trucks, which is beyond 
the scope of this rulemaking action.
    The TMA stated that the FHWA would be unable to find answers 
concerning possible effects of allowing the additional inch for 
excluded devices. It noted that this situation was not surprising, 
given the ``obscure and essentially unresearchable nature of the 
underlying question--namely, will one inch of additional width of a 
vehicle, all things else being equal, cause more crashes?'' It noted 
that the proposed change would not increase the width dimensions of the 
vehicle per se, but only the attached, excludable non-cargo carrying 
devices. The TMA stated that the change in ``encroachments'' of these 
devices would be ``extremely small,'' would make ``researching the 
crash cause and effect relationship'' very difficult, and would ``not 
[be] readily identifiable in crash data bases.'' The TMA concluded 
that, ``given the de minimus nature'' of the change, and the benefits 
to NAFTA harmonization efforts, it would support the one-inch increase 
proposed in the NPRM and SNPRM.
    Repeating its earlier objections to the NPRM, the AHAS again 
opposed the proposal for the one-inch change in the exclusion 
provisions. Referring to the FHWA's request for information in the 
SNPRM, it concluded that ``the FHWA has acknowledged [in the SNPRM] the 
need to make a specific safety finding on the safety consequences of 
allowing an additional inch of width on each side of a commercial motor 
vehicle.'' The AHAS also challenged the FHWA's reliance upon sources 
claiming no knowledge about the ``precise safety effects of vehicle 
width increases'' as an ``application of agency expertise.'' The AHAS 
indicated that such reliance would not allow the FHWA to ``draw well-
crafted and strongly supported conclusions from the facts entered into 
the record.''
    It further noted that the references cited in the SNPRM are no 
substitute for making ``specific safety findings about the consequences 
of change in policy,'' and demanded that the agency employ 
``empirical'' research, rather than rely upon sources that can offer no 
insight into the safety consequences of the suggested change. The AHAS 
reminded the FHWA that the requirement for such empirical research 
grows out of a ``statutory obligation to measure the safety impact of 
such changes'' that cannot be satisfied merely by ``expressions of 
ignorance or a priori argument.''
    The AHAS further stated that adding an extra inch in the width of 
excluded devices is not a de minimus change in the current limitation. 
It also noted that there are many highways on the NN with less than 12-
foot wide lanes where the one-inch increase could have safety 
implications.

Conclusion

    The FHWA is unable to determine at this time that there is a need 
for an increase in the existing width exclusion applicable to safety 
and energy conservation devices. The administrative record of this 
rulemaking action has failed to identify any specific devices that 
would need the proposed expansion of the width exclusion in order to 
promote commercial motor vehicle safety and efficiency. In addition, 
there is no evidence that the lack of harmonization is adversely 
affecting NAFTA implementation or that harmonization in this area is 
otherwise necessary. Therefore, the FHWA is withdrawing this rulemaking 
and closing the docket.

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 127 and 315; 49 U.S.C. 31111 through 31115; 
49 CFR 1.48(b)(19) and (c)(19).

    Issued on: October 20, 2004.
Mary E. Peters,
Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. 04-23966 Filed 10-25-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P